ISQua EEA in partnership with ISQua and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia is delighted to release Volume 2 in the AI-supported synthesis of the healthcare accreditation and standards literature series. Our aim with this series is to scan the literature at two-yearly intervals to identify and synthesise articles of interest and produce a report highlighting these articles in a concise and digestible manner. Over time, the intention is that these reports will act as a database to track the scale, scope and evolution of healthcare accreditation and standards.
ISQua and ISQua EEA members and clients and other interested stakeholders may find it a helpful resource for bringing their institutions up to date. The report may support policymakers with future decisions regarding resourcing and enhancing of accreditation and standards.
Volume 2 in the series expands the database to include healthcare accreditation and standards articles published from 01st of January 2024 to 31st of December 2025. The findings from this second volume confirm that accreditation and standards remain an active and internationally relevant field of inquiry across healthcare delivery, clinical specialities, health professional education, and quality improvement. The 2024-2025 literature continues many of the themes identified in Volume 1, but also adds greater emphasis on implementation, organisational culture, staff experience, equity, specialty accreditation, and the use of accreditation as a mechanism for continuous improvement rather than periodic inspection alone.
The 2024-2025 literature portrays accreditation as a mature but still evolving field. Its most reliable contribution is in strengthening the architecture of quality: standards, governance, documentation, measurement, safety culture, and continuous improvement. Its more contested contribution lies in demonstrating direct, sustained, and equitable improvements in outcomes. The challenge for the next phase of accreditation research and practice is therefore not simply to ask whether accreditation “works”, but to determine how, where, for whom, under what conditions, and at what cost accreditation creates meaningful improvement.
